NYS rejects ASTM Property Inspection class

[Bill C. Merrell, CMI]

NYS has determined that the astm guidelines for inspections is too involved, and therefor will not be accepted for continuing education credit for home inspectors.

The state has accepted clsses such as mold, HUD inspections, Home deficeincies, Plumbing, elctrical, etc. They also acepted a thermal imgaing class as part of the home inspection.

We have taken these approved classes, and created a program for "Green" and "Energy" Inspections.

The ASTM Class will not be part of the series, since it is outside of the state guidelines as per the State of NY. Just found out in writing yesterday.

Will keep you posted....

Bill

[Nick Gromicko]

ASTM isn't a standards organization, they are a charge everyone to put their 2 cents in, and then charge everyone to access organization, which is why their standards are so horribly authored.

It's why we were forced to write our own Commercial SOP www.nachi.org/comsop.htm


Good job NY.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

ASTM isn't a standards organization, they are a charge everyone to put their 2 cents in, and then charge everyone to access organization, which is why their standards are so horribly authored.

You do know that the majority of the IRC and IBC, from which you base 99.9% of your NACHI TV training shows, are written by ASTM....right?

[Nick Gromicko]

I would disagree with your percentage. Some of our episodes are based on some standards which are based on some codes which some are developed by various sources. And I'm not sure I'd give a stakeholder coordination company the status of "author" so quickly. There are many contributors to almost all documents.

We try to bias all our episodes toward home and ancillary inspection inspectors, not code officials. However, that may change. We're about to be granted GSA approval to produce government funded, online video, code official courses. It's a big world though, and there is only so much pie we can eat... we're on the fence leaning away from it for now.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I would disagree with your percentage. Some of our episodes are based on some standards which are based on some codes which some are written by ASTM.

We try to bias all our episodes toward home and ancillary inspection inspectors, not code officials. However, that may change. We're about to be granted GSA approval to produce government funded, online video, code official courses. It's a big world though, and there is only so much pie we can eat.

Buy a copy of the IBC. They attribute their sources. It's about 80%.

[Nick Gromicko]

ASTM is not an original source though. They author almost nothing. Don't let the T in their old name (they changed it a couple years ago) fool ya. I lived next to their building for 7 years. They test nothing. They are a group of technical writers who compile text contributed by stakeholders that they coordinate. Facilitators, yes. Authors, no. To borrow a recently used percentage, 99.9% of their committee members are not ASTM employees.

[Nick Gromicko]

They are to documents as King James is to the Bible. Facilitators of other people and compilers of other people's work.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

ASTM is not an original source though. They author almost nothing. Don't let the T in their old name (they changed it a couple years ago) fool ya. I lived next to their building for 7 years. They test nothing. They are a group of technical writers who compile text contributed by stakeholders that they coordinate. Facilitators, yes. Authors, no. To borrow a recently used percentage, 99.9% of their committee members are not ASTM employees.

I understand that....but you cannot ignore the fact that an overwhelming majority of AHJ's in North America and other parts of the world are enforcing standards that were provided from ASTM to the ICC for inclusion in the IRC and IBC (no matter how they came about obtaining or validating them).

[Nick Gromicko]

Agreed. They are a conduit. As to whether the coordination of what goes through that conduit from the original source to the end document adds value to it or not... well, you call 'em as you see 'em. I probably shouldn't pick on them too much. It's tough to put a good document together. Much of their stuff is excellent. Much of it, like their commercial SOP, is crap.

[Joe Farsetta]

Nick,

Regardless of what you may believe, a majority of those who perform commercial inspections, including professional engineering firms, architects, and accounting firms, do conform to the outlines for a PCA as provided via ASTM. These folks will likely never utilize the COMSOP. Too bad, really, because it does contasin some good stuff.

While NACHI's COMSOP is a viable alternative, one simply cannot dismiss the ASTM standard.

We teach compliance with both. I believe that the two compliment each other, and should not compete. The idea is conformance and compliance, not necessarily dominance with one over another. My course emphasizes that the real idea is to provide a guide for producing a quality work product, and help protect the inspector along the way.

Both have strong points... and some weak points. The idea is in understanding both, compliance, and comprehending what you have signed up to do.

BTW, NY rejected the course not due to the standard, but with the understanding that ASTM is clearly designed for COMMERCIAL property condition assessments. Inspection regulations stop at the residential side. As the NY State DOS, who licenses HIs is also the department in charge of all Code Officials in the state, and is the Department (along with the NY State Department of Education) that works with ASTM on a variety of issues, it was no real secret that teaching a course using a recognized commercial inspection standard for residential inspector CEUs probably wouldnt fly.

It was worth a try, though.

BTW:

ASTM is not an original source though. They author almost nothing.

This is not really true. Their committees and working groups do author a lot.

[Nick Gromicko]

Joe, their committees are almost entirely made up of non ASTM employees. How could they have experts on everything? Do you really think their committee on Jet Fuel is at ASTM? Nonsense. They are facilitators of other people and coordinators of other people's work, not original authors.

Anyway, the number of people who use ASTM's commercial SOP (mostly because of a historical lack of other options) is large but dwarfed by the number of people who complain about it and even further dwarfed by the number of people who have divorced themselves from it.

The document that ASHI and InterNACHI pointed to at the Philadelphia meeting (that I attended) in defeating ASTM's attempt to rewrite our industry's residential SOP was their own commercial SOP, that's how bad it is.

Many of their documents are great, but their commercial SOP is a mess. It's not an SOP at all actually, it's a scope of work permission form, and a long says-nothing one at that. The second largest inspection association, ASHI, publicly ridiculed it to defeat ASTM's rewrite of our residential SOP. The largest inspection association agreed and thought it so awful that it wrote its own.

Your argument that it's popularity means something, negates to mention that it was the only game in town for many years. I live in a mountain town, 20 miles from anything and we have only 1 pizza shop. It is the worst pizza you'll ever taste and ridiculously expensive...and yet the shop very popular. Figure it out.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Nick,

Regardless of what you may believe, a majority of those who perform commercial inspections, including professional engineering firms, architects, and accounting firms, do conform to the outlines for a PCA as provided via ASTM. These folks will likely never utilize the COMSOP. Too bad, really, because it does contasin some good stuff.

While NACHI's COMSOP is a viable alternative, one simply cannot dismiss the ASTM standard.

We teach compliance with both. I believe that the two compliment each other, and should not compete. The idea is conformance and compliance, not necessarily dominance with one over another. My course emphasizes that the real idea is to provide a guide for producing a quality work product, and help protect the inspector along the way.

Both have strong points... and some weak points. The idea is in understanding both, compliance, and comprehending what you have signed up to do.

BTW, NY rejected the course not due to the standard, but with the understanding that ASTM is clearly designed for COMMERCIAL property condition assessments.

Inspection regulations stop at the residential side.

As the NY State DOS, who licenses HIs is also the department in charge of all Code Officials in the state, and is the Department (along with the NY State Department of Education) that works with ASTM on a variety of issues, it was no real secret that teaching a course using a recognized commercial inspection standard for residential inspector CEUs probably wouldnt fly.

It was worth a try, though.

BTW:
This is not really true. Their committees and working groups do author a lot.

Joe,
I served on two ASTM committees for almost 11-years.

I can tell you that the committee members are considered "Experts in THEIR fields" and that A LOT OF RESEARCH, Laboratory testing, and Laboratory analysis goes into each and every "VOTE" / decision for a specific standard and or change to any document.

Those that say different are just speculating and speaking with a lack of knowledge of the inner workings of ASTM and their individual committees!

[Nick Gromicko]

Frank makes my point. ASTM uses the expertise of others like Frank. They don't hire this expertise in-house (Frank wasn't employed by ASTM), they facilitate outside expertise.

There is much good that comes from this (two heads are better than one).

There is much difficulty that comes from this (two cooks spoil the meal).

One need only read ASTM's Commercial SOP to find evidence of all the many cooks.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Frank makes my point. ASTM uses the expertise of others like Frank. They don't hire this expertise in-house (Frank wasn't employed by ASTM), they facilitate outside expertise.
Nick,
When I was on the ASTM Committees you had to be an already recognized Experienced Bona Fide Expert in your Specific field.
Your resume was reviewed by the committee and the committee had to vote to accept or Reject you as a member.

There is much good that comes from this (two heads are better than one).
When you get a panel of Experienced, Legitimate, Bona Fide experts to do;
1. Time consuming painstaking Research of both independent Technical & Manufacturer's Technical manuals.
2. Conduct laboratory tests.
3. Conduct laboratory analysis.
Then yes...... 12 to 14 heads are better than one!

There is much difficulty that comes from this (two cooks spoil the meal).
With all due respect..... In this case I could not DISAGREE with you more. This saying while "Cute" does not even come close to applying to the ASTM Committees!

One need only read ASTM's Commercial SOP to find evidence of all the many cooks.

Just to make matters clear.... You are referring to the ASTM Commercial SOP.

I am referring to the time tested and proven methods of ALL and I repeat ALL ASTM Committees!

As others have already pointed out.... ASTM is the recognized leading authority in our field.
They are the most "Quoted / Referred" to authority in the Building Codes.

I applaud you for trying to come up with a "Better" and more comprehensive Commercial SOP!

I see nothing wrong with your efforts and like the "ICC CODES" which are amended and improved upon each and every year ASTM does not sit idly by and stagnate.... they are also constantly reviewing their material for areas of improvement.

I say..... Keep up the good work! I am confident that NACHI will come up with something worthwhile and as soon as they do.... each year they will come up with something to improve upon an already good idea.


KUDOS to you and the NACHI staff and personnel that are working on this project!

[Nick Gromicko]

Correct. I only know about, in great detail, their commercial SOP. Which is why we had to write our own. An added advantage of writing our own legally defensible one is that we were able to procure free commercial E&O. www.nachi.org/comsop.htm